7 March 1998

I have always encouraged people to think and question -- no topic being beyond the pale. Although, and with reluctance, many question the various portions of a religion, few seem interested in examining science. It is as if science were the indisputable religion par excellence. Science, and I mean all of it, is full of claptrap and many of its practitioners qualify as genuine hucksters. The ego-centric flake Carl Sagan is a good example but the thrust of this article is not in that realm of criticism.

I'd like to clarify somewhat all of this "race" business because there appears to be hordes of venomous critters out there -- ready to devour the unwary and innocent -- who are known as "racists." A racist, of course, is a person who recognizes the entity "race." If there is no such thing as race -- as several jews from Ashley Montagu on have tried to convince us -- then they certainly could not exist any racists. But what do we mean by race?

The term race is used in several contexts such as the dog race, the human race, the German race and the animal race, not to mention the automobile race. Let's be a bit more precise and recall our high school biology lessons where we were taught the classification hierarchy: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species and variety. We must keep in mind that the particular classification of any form of life is open to debate and those debates still rage on. Nature doesn't classify, men do. And from this classification, based upon an ever-increasing number of physical similarities, men developed the notion of "evolution." It is as if someone discovered both a watch and a clock at the same time and then reaching the conclusion that one evolved from the other. (Recent discoveries in cell chemistry are demonstrating the impossibility of evolution according to Darwin.)

The terms sub-species, race, breed, variety and strain mean much the same. To speak of a breed of dog is similar to speaking of a race of man. Here is where it really gets enjoyable and where scientific folderol swims unencumbered.

A species is held to be the largest group which is inter-fertile. This group is a sub-category of the classification genus. In other words, a genus is comprised of several species. Latin names are traditionally used. The Latin Canis refers to a genus of "dog" critters. Canis familiarus is the common (familiar) dog. Canis vulpes is our native coyote. Canis aureus is a jackal. Even extinct canines are given names. Canis dirus is one -- the dire wolf. All of these species are inter-fertile but rarely inter-breed -- unlike humans who routinely copulate with anything which will stay relatively still.

There are several races (breeds) of dogs such a Doberman, Collie, Beagle, etc. which have their own smaller classifications. We also have our mongrel dogs with no specified breed and there exists millions of their human counterparts.

Homo sapiens (the wise!) is the only living species of talking apes which enjoy a unique biological classification. There are the long-gones such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and so on and so forth. What I find as extremely interesting is the complete lack of additional and significant sub-classifications of such obvious, and profound differences. Make no mistake: when man started classifying himself, the rules changed. I believe that this was mainly due to religious biases and pressures. The differences between a coyote and a jackal are no more than those found between an Eskimo and a Pygmy yet the coyote and the jackal enjoy a separate species classification while the Eskimo and the Pygmy do not. This inconsistency can only be attributed to the wacky nature of man's view of himself which, in many cases, is due to religious notions short-circuiting orderly thought.

If I had my say, I'd introduce other species into the genus Homo category. The Black African could perhaps be called Homo niggerus (of the river Niger) and the Asian Yellow man, Homo gookus. I'd even make room for Homo injunus and possibly Homo yiddus.

A racist not only acknowledges that there are breeds of men but also that biological differences produce behavioral differences which are obvious throughout the animal kingdom. Behavioral differences are what all of the commotion is about anyway. Haven't you noticed how quickly nignogs depart from a store which uses Western classical music as a background? The egalitarians and religious believe that every talking ape can be taught to behave in a certain fashion and that this behavioral training can then be inherited by the next generation. This is pure bolshevik nonsense.

Generally speaking, racists believe that their particular race is superior to all of the rest. We might ask: superior in what area? I personally have little problem with any superiority notion as it seems to be pervasive and natural. Each mother believes in the superiority of her offspring -- they are beautiful and intelligent. Doesn't everyone define superiority relative to himself? If you believe as I do, then obviously you are intelligent. If you don't agree with me, then you are certainly stupid. ¿No es verdad?

Let's put to rest another term -- man. When someone says "Men have landed on the moon," who do they mean? When we are told that man invented the steam locomotive, who are we talking about? Men have sent electronic gear to explore Mars. What men? Lo, and behold, "men" simply means White men and that is part of the reason I feel we need distinct species classifications for that potpourri of upright apes who are always into so much mischief.

The genus Canis has several species under its wing. The genus Felis includes several species such as Felis viverrina, Felis colocolo (pampus cat), Felis geoffroyi, and Felis domestica (familiarus - the common cat). When we come to "man" all sorts of sizes, shapes, smells, and so on, are dumped into one huge bin called Homo sapiens. Doesn't this seem odd to you? Perhaps, in the end, it just might be that talking apes simply defy classification. It's the only species on earth which will copulate with anything and usually everything. If this behavior is according to God's plan, then God must be a very odd duck indeed.